Slitherine

Spoke to Terry last night and his view was the same as my orignal view - you can do either. He also plays that abnormal formations can occur in combat.

Looking at the rules again the claimed restrcition on using bases that provide a dice or a POA ctied by someone actually applies to feeding more bases in, not to base removal and replacement.

Really the intent of this is very simple : you can be forced out of normal formation by the chaos of battle, but must then reform back into normal formation before you move again (and can do so for free at anytime in the manouvre phase). That's it - nothing to clever.

So revert to my original answer and take the above as the simple intent.

If there are further issues suggest someone starts another stream as its got rather confused.

Si

shall wrote:So you re saying troops fighting in 2 different directions is a normal formation ... you are arguing from both directions at once my friend. Either the 4 bullets are exceptions to normal formation or they are other normal formations. Can't have it both ways. They are clearly the former. Feels like argument for arguments sake beyond monte python levels.

No - I am saying that troops fighting in two directions have an exception to being in normal formation, so can face in two directions. However troups that are fighting in only one direction have no such exception, thus thay can only face in one direction (the direction they are fighting in), thus the whole BG must turn to face a flank or rear contact not just the contacted bases.

And how do you then explain the last bullet point on page 56 then? .... go for it ...

Si

shall wrote:

As the list of exceptions is incomplete it becomes difficult to tell if a specific rule is an exception to the general - can a BG break the contiguous constraint if that is the only way to fill in for a loss?

It has no choice, it is compulsory to refill the front rank, and therefore both covered by the general rule, and by an additional specific rule, and these are entirely consistent unless you seek to bend the general words (which is what they are) heavily to say otherwise ... which one can always do however hard we try. At some point if the intent is obvious then surely take the interp that fits the obvious intent!

Except the specific rule requires you to both fill in and retain contiguity, as you can't do both does the general rule determine which you do (retain contiguity)

As for consistency issues, you can create them if you want to, but specific rules override general rules in every ruleset I have ever seen. Is that all we need to say officially?
Must say I am a bit baffled by this stream - seems like lots of worry over the completely obvious relating to a general introduction section that is part of getting people to understand what a BG is and how it sits on the table. I really must be missing something.
Si

I don't see it as an introductory section, I see it as the fundamental rule governing the internal structure of a BG.

You appear to be reading the compulsory move exception as allowing anything, where as I only read it as allowing exceptions to the ranks and front edge requirements - i.e. must still retain single faceing and contiguity.
Your reading renders the fighting in two directions and orb exceptions redundant as they are both compulsory moves, but also means that the contiguity, and single facing, constraints only apply to compulsory moves that specifically mention them.

On your reading there is a solution to the column problem - you fill in to replace the loss, and then turn one or more bases to restore contiguity.

shall wrote:And how do you then explain the last bullet point on page 56 then? .... go for it ...

Si

What is to explain - when contacted the specified bases turn. However if not fighting in two directions then the constraint on all bases facing in the same direction still applies, so all the other bases must also turn.

Here the specific rule says what happens to some of the bases, but nothing about the other bases.
The general rule requires all bases face in a single direction. There is a specific exception allowing multiple facings if fighting in multiple directions, as this isn't applicable then the BG must face in a single direction.

What is to explain - when contacted the specified bases turn. However if not fighting in two directions then the constraint on all bases facing in the same direction still applies, so all the other bases must also turn.

Here the specific rule says what happens to some of the bases, but nothing about the other bases.
The general rule requires all bases face in a single direction. There is a specific exception allowing multiple facings if fighting in multiple directions, as this isn't applicable then the BG must face in a single direction.

Well if you want to play it that way go ahead but it is nethier what the rules say, the spirit of them, the intent, nor the authors clarifications .....
all it is what you get if you invent your own personal definitions of compulsory move .... again feel free but its the wrong definition. THE END.

Si